Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description appropriately focuses on data caveats. It adds valuable context that status is rule_unreviewed and not a holding, citator, or good law, which is important behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds specific information about the resource, allowed values, or status caveat. There is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. However, for a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, it omits pagination semantics and explicit usage alternatives, leaving gaps an agent may need to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It explains section_id format, relation values, and court values, but leaves after, before, and limit undocumented, which are relevant pagination controls.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states that it returns opinions with a citation-sentence signal for a Code section and specifies the relation values, which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like cases_citing_case or ic_cases_citing, but the statute-construction focus is still clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for finding opinions construing a Code section, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or sibling alternatives. An agent must infer whether this or cases_citing_case/ic_cases_citing is the right tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.